Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Don't tell me you cannot comprehend, "The term “restored copyright” means copyright in a restored work under this section."?

It simply means that in the section that all uses of the term “restored copyright” means copyright in a restored work.

In fact the section is entitled § 104A. Copyright in restored works.

Also, § 104A (1) (a) (A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.

To even think for a moment that there is any implication that the law restores a film is absurd.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:58pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

A "restored work" or the "restored work" refers to a work that has had it copyright restored by that section of the copyright act. It does not refer to any particular version of the work - just the complete work itself that has had its copyright restored under the Act.

You clearly aren't understanding the legislation.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 04:58:22

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 2:52am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

17 U.S.C C92,App III, §102 (a)(1) United States law to prevail in conflict. - No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.

Well beside the fact this law is ex post facto and violates equal protection, it is also inconsistent with current copyright law which makes it all null and void.

But I do clearly understand that. The enactment of Pub. L. No. 103-465 was a the application of such a provision to this circumstance. And it seems a Federal judge agrees with that. And even though popular opinion may have been wrong as to the definition of 'restored works' (as pointed out in that blog link about One-Eyed Jack), it is obvious that you've read a lot of this for the first time as well. Maybe we should both rely on actual sources rather than poor interpretations found on sites like wikipedia, which by the way states that M and Metropolis are in the public domain. That being the case coupled with this poorly written law is enough to absolve anyone of copyright infringement as they would not be willfully infringing as there are enough references dated after 1996 that claim these movies are public domain so as to be public knowledge.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:41am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I am not getting my information from wikipedea, but from years of studying these laws.

The fact that wikipedia or popular opinion lists a film as PD does not replace good due diligence practice. Wikipedia is not a good or valid source for copyright research. Ignorance of copyright status is not a valid defence against copyright infringement, especially when the owners of the copyright have done all they legally have to do to make their ownership known.

When people are going to use work without authorisation, they should do some diligent, documented copyright research or get proper advice. I don't understand how any company that uses these films commercially can be covered by any sort of IP insurance if they disregard the need for due diligence and prefer to rest on naive and scewered readings of the law. If they are not covered, they are simply asking for trouble.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)